- From: carmen r <_@whats-your.name>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:03:49 -0400
- To: semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>
On Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:44:32PM +0100, Giovanni Tummarello wrote: > > Unfortunately sparql covers just very few processing requirements. > even URI rewriting is not possible in sparql (or is it? :-) if it is > its not trivial). Plus you have issues with named graphs. (how do you > name the inputs etc.. that you would need to cover. Ruby (and assuredly JAvascript, Haskell, etc) is nice as an RDF pipe language the implicit blocks in ruby especially lend themselves to chained pipelines, as does . in haskell.. javascript is a bit more verbose but as long as you arent inlining anonymous lambdas its not too bad im sure you can write a function that takes 3 args and returns 3 results! even if you consider XML a dialect of lisp, its syntax is far from comfortable for programming, and the same could be said about lisp, in comparison to the above languages but to each their own. some people just love doing everything in XML for whatever sick reason..
Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2008 16:06:26 UTC